linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] mm: Change zap_details.zap_mapping into even

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 28 Jan 2022 17:17:21 +0800
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] mm: Change zap_details.zap_mapping into even_cows

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 10:03:20AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 28.01.22 05:54, Peter Xu wrote:
> > Currently we have a zap_mapping pointer maintained in zap_details, when it is
> > specified we only want to zap the pages that has the same mapping with what the
> > caller has specified.
> > 
> > But what we want to do is actually simpler: we want to skip zapping
> > private (COW-ed) pages in some cases.  We can refer to unmap_mapping_pages()
> > callers where we could have passed in different even_cows values.  The other
> > user is unmap_mapping_folio() where we always want to skip private pages.
> > 
> > According to Hugh, we used a mapping pointer for historical reason, as
> > explained here:
> > 
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/391aa58d-ce84-9d4-d68d-d98a9c533255@google.com/
> > 
> > Quotting partly from Hugh:
> 
> s/Quotting/Quoting/

Will fix.

> 
> > 
> >   Which raises the question again of why I did not just use a boolean flag
> >   there originally: aah, I think I've found why.  In those days there was a
> >   horrible "optimization", for better performance on some benchmark I guess,
> >   which when you read from /dev/zero into a private mapping, would map the zero
> >   page there (look up read_zero_pagealigned() and zeromap_page_range() if you
> >   dare).  So there was another category of page to be skipped along with the
> >   anon COWs, and I didn't want multiple tests in the zap loop, so checking
> >   check_mapping against page->mapping did both.  I think nowadays you could do
> >   it by checking for PageAnon page (or genuine swap entry) instead.
> > 
> > This patch replaced the zap_details.zap_mapping pointer into the even_cows
> > boolean, then we check it against PageAnon.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/memory.c | 16 +++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index 14d8428ff4db..ffa8c7dfe9ad 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -1309,8 +1309,8 @@ copy_page_range(struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma, struct vm_area_struct *src_vma)
> >   * Parameter block passed down to zap_pte_range in exceptional cases.
> >   */
> >  struct zap_details {
> > -	struct address_space *zap_mapping;	/* Check page->mapping if set */
> >  	struct folio *single_folio;	/* Locked folio to be unmapped */
> > +	bool even_cows;			/* Zap COWed private pages too? */
> >  };
> >  
> >  /* Whether we should zap all COWed (private) pages too */
> > @@ -1321,13 +1321,10 @@ static inline bool should_zap_cows(struct zap_details *details)
> >  		return true;
> >  
> >  	/* Or, we zap COWed pages only if the caller wants to */
> > -	return !details->zap_mapping;
> > +	return details->even_cows;
> >  }
> >  
> > -/*
> > - * We set details->zap_mapping when we want to unmap shared but keep private
> > - * pages. Return true if we should zap this page, false otherwise.
> > - */
> > +/* Decides whether we should zap this page with the page pointer specified */
> >  static inline bool should_zap_page(struct zap_details *details, struct page *page)
> >  {
> >  	/* If we can make a decision without *page.. */
> > @@ -1338,7 +1335,8 @@ static inline bool should_zap_page(struct zap_details *details, struct page *pag
> >  	if (!page)
> >  		return true;
> >  
> > -	return details->zap_mapping == page_rmapping(page);
> > +	/* Otherwise we should only zap non-anon pages */
> > +	return !PageAnon(page);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static unsigned long zap_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> > @@ -3403,7 +3401,7 @@ void unmap_mapping_folio(struct folio *folio)
> >  	first_index = folio->index;
> >  	last_index = folio->index + folio_nr_pages(folio) - 1;
> >  
> > -	details.zap_mapping = mapping;
> > +	details.even_cows = false;
> 
> Already initialized to 0 via struct zap_details details = { };
> 
> We could think about
> 
> struct zap_details details = {
> 	.single_folio = folio,
> };
> 
> >  	details.single_folio = folio;
> >  
> >  	i_mmap_lock_write(mapping);
> > @@ -3432,7 +3430,7 @@ void unmap_mapping_pages(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t start,
> >  	pgoff_t	first_index = start;
> >  	pgoff_t	last_index = start + nr - 1;
> >  
> > -	details.zap_mapping = even_cows ? NULL : mapping;
> > +	details.even_cows = even_cows;
> >  	if (last_index < first_index)
> >  		last_index = ULONG_MAX;
> >  
> 
> Eventually
> 
> struct zap_details details = {
> 	.even_cows = even_cows,
> };

I think in the very initial version I have had that C99 init format but I
dropped it for some reason, perhaps when rebasing to the single_page work to
avoid touching the existing code.

Since as you mentioned single_folio is another.. let's do the cleanup on top?

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu